I read this blog all the time and this is the first time I've ever posted. And my comment is for all of you regulars I loving reading: Please actually review Linda Hirshman's article and it's included links, I think Linda is challenging us in a very important way and Leslie's summary of her work is closing/limiting the potential of that discussion.

I agree with Tracy. Furthermore, please clarify who NOW protested. Your usage in that sentence implies that the petition was in protest of Hirshman, when it was really in protest of GMA's entire "Mommy Wars" story.

"professor-cum-provocateur with an ego bigger than Mumbai"

Seems a little judgemental to me. I agree with Tracy. I think it's important that someone say what Hirshman is saying. And I don't think she absolves employers from doing the right things for women employees, but women, society needs to demand these things. Men have families too so then why do almost all fathers work without the guilt or anxiety? Her premise, while provacative, needs to be heard.

It does seem that a subset of educated women has retreated into their homes while others work "part-time". How has this impacted on women in general? I think it has allowed the status-quo of discrimination against women in the workplace, inadequate childcare, and society's view that the family is the woman's responsibility. It has created the unfair expectations of women by employers. We need stronger anti-discrimination laws that are enforced. Unfortunately this administration does not feel this issue is important.

I think we need books and point of view's like this. There is a "mommy war" because many stay-at-home women would prefer to work if circumstances were improved and the women who work are made to feel guilty for working by society. Each side thinks the other has it "better". Until the tide turns, we vote for less "conservative" anti-family politicians/administrations and employers find it profitable to make the workplace less hostile for everyone, we'll still struggle to decide if we can be a whole person (have a career) or sit at home and pick peas off the floor.

well we've heard from the working mothers , can't wait 'till the stay at homes have coffee and fire up the computer . Just live your lives and be happy , who cares what linda whatever thinks or anyone else for that matter ?

While I weight in on the side of "choice" if you want to work - work - if you want to stay home - then stay home - none of these arguments address the fact or needs of those women who have no choice but to work outside of the home - whether they want to or not - educated or not...I for one, had not choice but to work (single mother) but also WANTED to go to work - and not only because I had to work very hard on obtaining my education...success in the business world is gratifying in its own way - not only monetarily...

Working Mother , nobody can " make " you feel guilty , guilt is by definition from within.

The problem I had with Hirshman's article, and this whole "mommy wars" idea in general, is that everything is black and white. Most of the moms I know are living in ever changing shades of grey--maybe SAHM for infants, working PT for a while, FT when kids go to school, and every permutation in between.

But I must say that the idea that my degree is wasted by showing my son the world is beyond insulting--it's just ridiculous.

"Linda Hirshman, a retired philosophy professor-cum-provocateur with an ego bigger than Mumbai . . ." Hey, pot, the kettle's calling.

And this one always annoys me "By definition, all moms have already gotten to work." What a crock. It is unreasonable to compare taking care of your children with getting out and going to a job every day. Despite the whines and cries of the more militant SAHMs continent, not every mother is a "working" mother. Every mother is a mother. Every father is a father. Everyone who holds a job is working. The rest is just life. Where's the cute cliches to cover the women without children who stay at home? Don't you think they're "working" as much as any SAHM? These stupid slogans do nothing to help the problem of working moms vs. SAHMs and only further arm each side with BS to fling at one another.

I'm glad to read the first few comments because I agree that I think Leslie got this one wrong and her comments are going to limit debate on what I think are some valid points Hirshman makes. (And if she hadn't been provocative, would anyone have paid attention?) I get mad every time a (highly educated, professional, fast-rising) senior woman in my firm leaves to stay home with kids because it makes it harder for me to demand what I need to make the balance work. The senior leaders tell themselves these women made a choice, and so the company doesn't need to change to facilitate better balance--basically, those of us who stay just have to suck it up. And, although they would never admit it, I'm sure they take me less seriously as a worker because they assume that when I have #2 or #3 I will also be out the door, and that hurts my career. It does hurt the feminist cause in many ways when educated, professional women "opt out" to stay home, and I'm glad someone has spoken up to say so.

I applaud Hirschman. That doesn't necessarily mean that she is right - or, more importantly, that her view needs to be the view of every woman, or that her words are not incendiary. However, I am a 25-yo (childless) soon-to-be lawyer who feels much higher pressure to be a good mommy than to have a career. I applaud Hirschman because she is the only ne standing up for my generation - those girls who were told that we could be anything, do anything - until we actually did it. Then the emphasis shifted to marrying someone similarly educated so that we can become perfect mothers to perfect overachieving children. No thank you. I would like children someday, but you better believe that those kids will grow up knowing (1) that mommy and daddy are equals, and that means they both work and they both empty the dishwasher, and (2) that life and children and jobs are hard. No fairy tale here.

Sorry, that should be "contingent," not "continent."

What;s interesting is that Linda H. seems to only be able to see women -- or people, for that matter -- as economic entities, useful only as workhorses. This sounds an aeful lot like Karl Marx's thinking. And it's just as limiting.

Also, if women are not using thier college degrees, why has no one mentioned that those resources perhaps could be used to serve African-American men, who DO NOT go to college in record numbers -- and who would certainly put these degrees to use. Women, it seems, are getting useless boutique degrees while African-Americans are trapped in the economic underclass.

I am kind of surprised that so many readers so far have disagreed with Leslie's analysis of this article. I actually spent quite a bit of time discussing this article with my husband last night. From my reading of the article, Linda does seem to relish her new found fame and stirring the pot. I thought Linda's ego was inflated (to say the least) and her dismissiveness of other people's life choices shameful.

What I don't understand is why some people only find value in their time if there is some monetary reciprocation. If I am paid, I am valuable. If you are not paid, you have no worth. I think you are duped if you believe that the only things that are worthwhile are in the public sphere.

I don't understand how patriarchy keeps women in the home, but you aren't buying into the patriarchal system if you discount women's historical and continuing contributions to home life and agree that the only things that are worthwhile are those that are traditionally male. Without the home, we would have no society. It is the foundation of culture everywhere.

This is not to say that I think women must stay home; men can stay home too, and shouldn't be discounted for it. But let's be honest, women already have to take substantial time off because biologically they have babies and they make milk. So although philosophically everyone should be free to make choices about their lives, biologically there are restraints.

I am not fundamentalist. I am not even religious. But I plan on being a sahm. I graduated summa cum laude, but I didn't go to college just to get a job. I went because it is personally satisfying. I love my family more than anything, and being the center of home life has always been my dream. I won't apologize for that, or be guilted.

How great it is, to be wealthy and elite, and have a 'choice' as to whether or not to work. Isn't it just great that women have the choice to become financially dependent? What an accomplishment it is that woman make up the majority of the poor, especially when they are old and no longer are unemployed 'by choice'. Isn't it just great that woman have a choice not to have a career? After all, we can count on men to be sure that our interests are represented when it comes to the types of laws that they pass, and the types of social and economic policies that adopt for us.
I guess that the concept of 'majority rules' doesn't apply when it comes to having a say amongst the decision-makers in the world. We choose not to have that essential 'critical mass' in those corporatate, government, media, scientific, military, and legal jobs that we retire from in our early thirties our decide not to pursue. We don't need to be one of the people who set the cultural, social, and economic agenda that we always complain about? No, it is better that we stay home and enact a shield around our family to protect them from the elements that we don't like, rather than work in a position that might have some control or influence over them. We can count on our men to set the rules, and we will play by them.
After all, the workplace is not accommodating to us. Leaving the workplace will force it to change, because it isn't like there are plenty of other people to replace us. We don't want our husbands to share the responsibilities of cutting back on their careers, to have to leave early to take care of a sick child, to have to say no to excessive overtime even though something important is happening at work. If we work we would hurt our husband's careers. We don't want them to feel pressured into demanding the type of workplace flexibilities that might make it possible for us both to work. No, it is better for our husbands to accommodate the sixty hour work weeks. After all, if the workplace would not say yes to our demands, then they certainly aren't going to ask when men start asking for reasonable hours. We will punish the workplace by quitting, that will teach them!
Oh, and this is all true only for those of us who can afford it. You know, those of us that worked hard in school and whose husbands make a lot of money. Everyone else who didn't make the right choices, you need to work. It is only best for our children to have a mom at home. Your children are better off having you work at that very important job of driving the school bus, making copies at the office, serving me my morning coffee at the drivethru window, and cleaning public restrooms. You know, those important jobs that men are just dying to have. This will teach you responsibility, about the work ethic, and also will keep you from needing my husband's tax money to feed your kids. But you women out there that had the opportunity and the skills to learn to be a scientist, a corporate ladder-climber, a doctor, a lawyer, or anything else with a title, your children need you at home. And, you should get a tax cut and Social Security motherhood credits to help you. After all, you have the most important job in the world.

I have found this "opt out" trend that is discussed in Ms. Hirshman's article fascinating. I am one of the affluent, educated women she is discussing. I am 29 and went to a top 25 law school. I am the only working mother (my son just turned one) out of all of the women I went to law school with. Each woman that has had children so far, has left their firm/company to stay home. I am literally the only working mother I know that has my educational background and is my age. The other two working mothers in my office had their kids in their 40s and are the major breadwinner at home. I feel completely alone.

A stay-at-home mom, with a Ph.D., can be a wonderful role model for her children - male or female, that education has inherent worth. Worth should not be measured solely in the dollars of corporate productivity.

I actually can't believe it, because I don't agree with almost everything she says, but I AM happy that she's talking about these things. Not because I think women need to "get to work" instead of staying home with the children -- I think it's up to the individual -- but because I have hopes it will force a dialog that will maybe get family-unfriendly companies to start bending the rules a little. The journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step. Maybe we'll all be thanking her in 10 years.

nj,
Uh, please...all parents care about how they bring up their children. It's tiresome to hear stay-at-home moms say over and over again how wonderful they are for being home, "doing the right thing" for their kids, etc. in order to justify their choice. I understand that that comes from their own angst about being at home and not pursuing a career.

And Jayne and Arlmom are on target.

And Ceb, it's not only about money. You miss the point. In our society, what one earns, defines success. I mean look at Oprah Winfrey...a conceited bag of hot air and she is "important" and has influence because she is a billionaire. For those of us with careers, it is the meaningful work, the contribution to society that is as important or moreso than the money. Even someone who serves burgers at the mall feels a sense of contribution after a day of a job well done and a paycheck. Most of us can be and are good mothers. But all humans want to make our "mark" on the world, even the SAHM. But women don't make our "marks" by staying at home. And no amount of bogus feelgood sloganing ("staying at home contributes to society") will change that.

We need to change how employers behave and think and pressure society to accept women in the workplace. We need flexibility for time off to have a baby and come back (like everywhere else in the world). We need employers who will promote women and their careers even if they're in their child-bearing years.

If staying home and taking care of the children were so wonderful, men would have been doing it all along.

If staying home and taking care of the children were so wonderful, men would have been doing it all along.

"Grain of truth: When picking squashed peas off the kitchen floor or using one's pincer grasp to carry soiled underwear to the washing machine, the risk neutrality derivation of the Black-Scholes equation does seem kind of irrelevant. But how do you know at 18 or 22 whether you want to work, stay home, or combine the two? And who's to say that penal law or penicillin titration is knowledge that women at home today won't put to paid use again tomorrow?"

Silly me, but I always thought that the overall purpose of getting an education was to gain critical thinking and problem-solving skills, both of which are very relevant to raising smart, capable children.

As for the Black-Scholes equation you learned in MBA school, Leslie, I have a question for you: just how often did you use Black-Scholes in your paid job in Marketing at J&J or in your paid job at the Post?

"...we'll still struggle to decide if we can be a whole person (have a career) or sit at home and pick peas off the floor."

As someone who left a six-figure job to be a full-time mom, I emphatically disagree that having a paid career makes someone a "whole person." Being a full-time mom to my toddler is much more meaningful than being a cog in the corporate machine ever was. To me, money is necessary to pay the bills but most definitely not the purpose of life.

Read her book, cover to cover, it will only take a couple hours, and then you can post. She makes very valid points. However, you have to be completely honest with yourself to grasp them. I, for one, am pleased that she puts the responsibility and the solution in the hands of the individuals complaining, the women, rather than in the hands of the husbands, employers or government.

I work. It makes me a better mother, wife, woman and human being. You can have it all, it just takes effort, and really not that much if you make the right "choices" throughout your life. That is what we should be teaching our daughters and sons.

Hey Arl. lawyer,

I know exactly what you mean. I'm an academic, working, hoping to have kids soon, not EVER planning to leave this amazing job that I love, where I make a huge difference to others, and where I am personally fulfilled, happy, and paid, with benefits and a retirement plan.

Within my own small academic community I get lots of support from women and men, so I'm clearly more fortunate than you there, but once I go outside it to the rest of America, all I hear is how staying at home and making sure my kid gets the absolute most out of Baby Einstein is the single thing that matters in the world. Oy!

And let's not forget that if I did stay at home, that would lock my husband into a job with hellish hours forever... I've asked him never to leave me managing a job and a home job (i.e., kids) all by myself, and he has asked me never to leave him bearing the financial burden of our lives by himself.

But as far as I can tell as I read this blog, we're in a stunning minority... when I read Linda's article I thought, ok, so she's controversial, but

1) Shes' TRYING to be (as she states, explicitly)

and

2) THANK GOD someone doesn't make me feel like a monster just because I don't want to stay at home. Ever.

Dear no name: Yes, yes, and yes again. I could not possibly have said it better. I think we should coin a new term to describe those who employ working women to make their non-working lives more agreeable: "dogwhistle feminism" (based on the notion of "dogwhistle fashion"), which is to say, a focus on something that is so exclusive and so out of reach for the majority of people that the issues surrounding it are unfathomable and it might as well not exist. And yes, I am very tired of the schadenfreude class that stays at home and secretely hopes that the children of us working stiffs will bear emotional scars for life so that they can validate a choice they obviously feel very conflicted about. LH is too dogmatic, but this is an area where only a sledgehammer wielded with a very secure grip has any prayer of bringing down the scaffolding so elaborately constructed to shield out the obvious.

"To me, what's fascinating and infuriating about Hirshman's arguments is that there's often a (teeny) grain of truth in what she says."

I saw that GMA segment and have been trying for months to find out who that woman [Hirshman] was, and now I know. I have to agree with Tracy, the first poster, that Hirshman made some excellent points. IMO she takes things way too far, but I think a lot of the uproar from women regarding her comments is because she hits a deep nerve and challenges asumptions. Extreme opinions like hers are often very helpful to a debate.

Dear Mass Prof.,
You're not alone. Most people like us are too busy working to blog. I happen to have the day off--I'm an academic like you. We are terrific examples to our children. My son had to write an essay in school one year about who was a "hero" in his life and he was the only kid in his class to write about his mother. He wrote "even though she is busy saving lives, she still has time to spend with me".

Children recognize the important work that their working mothers do and in fact do better with happy, fulfilled mothers. If I were to stay at home, I'm sure my kids would not be as well-adjusted as they are. Some of the "highly educated" SAHM I know are on prozac and/or have difficult marriages. I'm not necessarily saying that staying at home causes unhappiness, but often staying at home is not really a "choice".

I also have to applaud No Name (name is posted as 'June19'). You NAILED it. I have nothing to do with SAH moms -- they are of no use to me. Depending on how long they've been home, they are clueless to the outside world and how competetive it is. Not only that, I feel I am making strides for woman by working where I am in the capacity I have. I feel I'm doing my part to make women as important as men in that regard.

As a professional woman, I see how power is transfered, and ladies, it ain't at by staying home. Like No Name said, woman need to be out there, everyday, making laws, making businesses, being in the face of the bigwigs to make our world the way we want it. SAH moms completely drop the feminist ball when they drop out of the rat-race. You leave the rest of us out there to fend for ourselves. And really, for you, too, although you don't contribute. THAT'S why SAH moms bug me and why I love that Hirshman sparked this debate.

Sarah H wrote:

Also, if women are not using thier college degrees, why has no one mentioned that those resources perhaps could be used to serve African-American men, who DO NOT go to college in record numbers -- and who would certainly put these degrees to use. Women, it seems, are getting useless boutique degrees while African-Americans are trapped in the economic underclass.

"Women" (did you forget to write White in front of it?) are not taking away resources from African-American men or women who wish to obtain higher degrees. Indeed, most colleges would be delighted to admit more African-Americans in the name of diversity, and will bend their admissions to permit such. Just typical blame someone else for "our" problems rhetoric.

Working mother, you wrote: "But women don't make our "marks" by staying at home."

You're totally wrong. My mom "stayed at home" and has been a community volunteer for 45 years. She has been elected to the Hall of Fame in our county. She is known as a mover and shaker and someone who has made a great contribution to the quality of life in our area. My mother could have been president of a bank or, as one of her (male) friends said, "She could have managed Chrysler." But that was not her choice. She raised me and my sister, built a happy home with my dad, and "had it all" as far as she's concerned.

I can't believe some women in this day and age still think the only way anyone can make a "mark" in this world is to earn a huge salary and be an executive or something.

Wow, CAH, you have a real chip on your shoulder. You have no idea how a so-called "SAH mom" might be contributing to society in ways other than being part of the "rat race". Just because you chose the competitive corporate world to do your good in, it doesn't mean there aren't other avenues. Some women who are "SAHs" serve on local committees and boards that directly impact your life, but you wouldn't know that because you're too busy cutting them down. Your anger stuns me.

Hooray for Mass. Prof! My daughter was telling her friend on the playground about what her mommy does all day, taking care of patients(which she does not want to do--prefers to take care of elephants) I have invested a lot in my career, love what I do everyday. While my kids are the most important thing in my life, I will make the choices necessary to make the combo of family and career work. And I think that is a great example for my two girls. I do not want them to think that they are limited by the restrictions that society places on families. Hopefully, when they have their careers things will have changed and they will have an easier time. If LH did not provide some of these provocations, people would not talk about them--talk does lead to change eventually.

Every time someone "chooses" the SAHM life, it plays right into the hands of those that were never comfortable with women having substantial careers.

While I am a working mother, I really dislike Hirshman condemning other women's choices. I hate the mommy wars and I don't like the idea of slamming other women to justify our choices to ourselves. Why can't we make choices that work best for our family?

And, wow, JJ, you stupidity stuns me. Seriously, who cares if your mom worked on the 4-H float or something like that? That's not bettering women or their place in this world. Women who worked their way up the corporate ladder and now mentor other women are the ones that make a difference.

You cannot be so naive to believe that little county or community activities hold a candle to owning your own business or being on the executive board. It doesn't. If you want to make a difference, if you want to be heard in this world, you better be prepared to play with the big boys. Your post makes me believe you have no concept of how competetive it is out there.

As far back as I can remember, the women in my family - grandmothers et al - had jobs AND raised children (in some cases, large numbers of children). It wasn't questioned. Why is it so hard now? I'm really asking - not just being rhetorical. Because until a few years ago when all this hype erupted, it didn't seriously occur to me that a choice between going out into the world/staying at home was necessary, or desirable.

Underlying the anti-Hirshman talk, I get the feeling, is a presumption that child-raising/home stuff is just the more "natural" realm of women. Do you all believe that? If so, why?

I'm with those who feel that what Hirschman is saying needs to be said. My only major criticism of Hirschman is that she may not be examining other workplace trends that make women decide to leave. The fact is there is still the perception that women don't "need" our jobs as much as men, even if we're not married!

I'm a PT SAH Wife (we're discussing children). And I'm PT because of the treatment I've received in the workplace. The nature of my job is that I can design myself out of it - in past years I've been "regretfully" laid off three separate times because of budgetary cuts.

While I understand marketplace pressures (and two of the layoffs occurred during the dot-com implosions), the layoff that really irked me and sent me into entrepreneurship was the last one.

I'm a specialist in technical web site interface issues - pretty much everything but performing the actual graphic design qualifies as my job skill set. Usability, Accessibility, cross-browser stability, picky and detailed stuff like that.

I was hired in my 30's into a web site development project run by a "Beltway Bandit" about 6 months after a male, 50-something colleague who had a similar skill set but claimed the project was overwhelmingly large and he absolutely *needed* help. (Actually, his skill set wasn't all that similar - he was a graphic designer who had been called upon to learn HTML - that's the only point where our skill set met.)

In the first 3 months of my employ, it became apparent to myself, my new boss, my new colleague and the rest of my team that the job was only overwhelming for my colleague - I had caught everything up, repaired major mistakes, and was developing new paths in the project. I did this gently and firmly and with good grace, but it was obvious that the improvements were due to my work alone (I'm not one to hide my light under a basket, but I don't stomp on someone when they're down, either.)

But about a year into my time on the project, there was a small round of layoffs. Guess who lost her job, despite a sterling performance review, two written commendations from the head of my department, and had had a spot created for her on the standards development team because of her obvious expertise?

The choice hadn't been made by my boss - it had been made by the client. My boss truly felt horrible because he didn't want to let me go, both professionally and personally, because it made no sense whatsoever. He had lobbied hard to keep me, but the client wouldn't budge.

So what's the kicker? My former boss told me about a year later (we remained friendly and in contact with each other) that the mild suspicions I'd voiced at the time were correct: my male colleague kept his job and I lost mine because mostly because the perception was that he had a family to support and I - recently engaged but still single - didn't need the money as much because now I was going to have a husband to fall back on.

Wonderful (and illegal, for that matter, but I didn't push the issue)...especially when you consider his wife made more money than he did!

Ms. Hirschman might do well to ask some of these PT, work-at-home mothers what were *all* of the reasons they left the workplace. Because sometimes, despite being a nearly perfect employee, gender and perceived societal roles can still blind people making the hiring/firing decisions (and in my case, the person making that decision was a woman!).

I may not be the CEO that Ms. Hirschman hoped women could become, but I do own my own business and stay out of the red - there's got to be something said for that.

Hi everyone -- I'm off to Wash Post Radio (1500 AM in the DC area) to discuss these issues with Linda Hirshman from 10 - 11 am. Please listen and call in! Great discussion so far.

Honestly, in answer to Lilybeth's question, I believe that women have or had higher expectations and are much more disappointed by how hard it is to work for a living. I don't blame women who leave the workforce for tiring of the so-called rat race. While it's hard to find balance, I have a feeling that many women who stay at home are expressing a stronger opinion about the work they are leaving than they are espousing a set of beliefs about child rearing.

Hirshman's article (which I read months ago)raised important points that no one else talks about any more. That if it is going to survive as a movement, there has to be more to feminism than the notion of "personal choice." That if the brightest, best educated women drop out of the paid workforce to do the unpaid work of childrearing, women as a class will be excluded from the decision-making processes that shape our society and economy. That the economic consequences of choosing not to work can be dire, and it's naive to believe otherwise. All of these points struck me as very true, and very important. And I say this as a SAHM (well, I work PT from home to help with the bills. I didn't marry "well" enough to give up work entirely. I hope to find a FT job soon so we can keep up our modest middle class lifestyle). Of course there is intrinsic value in raising your children, but try taking that to the bank. "Money isn't everything" until you don't have much. And in our capitalist society, not having a job that pays money is tantamount to not existing. After all, the hard work of mothering doesn't show up on your social security statement, and it won't help pay your bills 40 years from now.

One thing to bear in mind is that as Hirshman herself points out in her Outlook piece from Sunday is that she is a philosopher and philosopher take their call to make people think seriously about the issues. Philosphers of importance are never beloved by their peers. She cites what happened to Socrates.

It is also very important to remember that the vast majority of the criticism that is lobbed at Prof. Hischman is from the evangelical Christian right. They have an agenda that she challenges.

I agree with everyone who sees the relevance of her work. I find her view refreshing for the intellectual challenge that she infuses into the debate which has been sorely lacking. Americans are so afraid to think and heaven forbid someone, anyone but especially a woman criticize any mother. None of us across the spectrum from WOHM to SAHMs are perfect parents. Why is it okay to be criticized about one's work product and decisions when formally employed and forbidden when one gives up formal employment to stay at home and raise children?

I echo previous posts in suggesting you read Hirshman's original article - I see more than a grain (or handful of grains) of truth in it. Something we often gloss over when discussing the "choice" of staying home or working is that when educated/highly educated women "choose" to stay home, they are negatively impacting others. This is why I can't buy into the "to each her own" mindset of working v. sahm. If you go to law school and then "opt out," as a previous poster noted, you are negatively impacting the professional environment for other folks who want to try and strike a balance personally & professionally, and you are particularly hurting other women who want to stay at work and have to fight the "she's just going to leave when she has a kid" mentality. The knee-jerk response to this is - why should I care about other people? I am doing what is best for my kid by staying at home. But what about you who have daughters? You are contributing to the belief that women are just going "to leave, anyway" after reproducing, so why bother to invest in women colleagues? What if your daughter wants to be a lawyer? Then she grows up, goes to law school and works at a firm that doesn't REALLY think she's worth investing in, because so many women leave the work force, anyway. You have explicitly contributed to the (often quietly prevalent) mindset that it is less fruitful to invest in professional women because they're going to leave the workforce. If you want to stay home/opt out/whatever - fine. Just don't say it doesn't negatively impact other people - including your own female offspring.

It seems like one big problem here is the definition of "staying at home". Linda Hirshman seems to define it as a mother who does exactly that, stay at home, rather than as a mother who doesn't have a paying job. The only "stay at home" mothers I know who do nothing outside the home are the mothers of very young children or disabled children. And those mothers plan to return to work soon. The other mothers I know who have left their paying jobs do many things besides clean house and prepare meals. They work in the schools or they volunteer at nursing homes, local libraries, for Special Olympics, or on hospital boards, or they manage the family money and investments. My aunt took carpentry classes so she could remodel her home and also the homes of her two aging sisters and my grandmother. Each time she and her family have moved, she's sold the house on her own and make a great profit for her family.

Yes, the moms I write about have the financial resources to "stay at home" (it's not always as difficult as people make it out to be) and most have college degrees. Some plan to return to paid work at some point. Most have made a decision, along with their husbands, that having to conform to the schedule and demands of paid work was not what they wanted while their children were small.

What I don't like about Hirshman is that she would prefer us all to be worker drones rather than people who have the right to make choices about the lives we want to lead. I have a master's degree and will soon leave my paid employment to pursue another degree. My goal in life is to educate myself and find ways to help others. Helping others to me is not necessarily being in some corporate job and fighting so the woman who comes after me can get take months off and promoted regularly even if she had five kids. If that's what you want to fight for, great, but it's not what ALL women need to fight for.

Oh, just wanted to point out - I didn't push the issue of my layoff because a lawyer friend of mine said it probably wasn't worth my time.

Even if I thought I had been chosen to be let go more for personal than professional reasons, Virginia's "termination without cause" laws in concert with the budget cuts would just mean an expensive legal battle for me that would probably be unsatisfying, to boot.

And by that time I had also moved on to something better, so it just didn't seem necessary.

To Susan -- I am standing up and applauding right now. Excellent post.

Is it really necessary to drum into our progeny that "life and children" are "hard?" I plan to wait until mine are at least 12 to tell them the bad news, combine the talk with rational discussion of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the birds and the bees. As long as I am shattering the fantasy might as well get it all out of the way at once. Seems much more emotionally economical that way, you see. Linda'd be proud.

From Linda's target Audience (scr): I applaud Hirschman. I would like children someday, but you better believe that those kids will grow up knowing (1) that mommy and daddy are equals, and that means they both work and they both empty the dishwasher, and (2) that life and children and jobs are hard. No fairy tale here.

To all of you disapproving of SAHMs, what do you think of SAHDs?

Tanger, I agree that LH is too dogmatic, but I think her bracing style is just what is needed to raise some very important issues, and frankly, to get past the denial that many women engage in when they leave the workforce. I always tell women who ask, that even if you leave work for home, you need a plan -- training as a carpenter and remodeling your house might be that plan. I mean, my sister's husband basically quit his day job to do the same thing to investment properties. Nobody accused him of dropping out. So might pursuing another degree, finding a more personally fulfilling job with an organization you feel excited about, even if it pays less, and so on. But no woman should ignore the cost of staying at home. And yes, I want the world to be better for my daughters. That is one reason why I am still working even though it does sometimes feel like I'm banging my head against the wall.

I have never heard of this woman until I read her rebuttal piece on the link here. She has no clue why people are upset. She really seems quite delusional about what she actually wrote. She seems to think that her piece is a defense of working woman, when it fact it is a condensing attitude why there is a division between stay at home moms vs working moms. Her basic argument seems to be that any dimwit could say at home and raise kids, but it takes intelligence to rise in the workplace, and educated women would be stupid to give up their careers for raising kids. Then she proceeds to blame fundamentists for woman staying at home. I think more woman than just fundamentists stay home with their children. The Last thing that I dont think she seems to get is that A lot of woman enjoy staying home with their children, and it does not seem that she could ever get that. I'm sure she would also browbeat one of daughters,(if one of her 3 children is a woman) to stay in a job, even if that daughter wanted to stay at home and raise the child.

Actually, her type of attidude is exactly why there has been a backlash. Another Ironic point in her article was her subtle attempt at victimhood , when she got support from everybody around her because everybody else was being mean to her. That from somebody who wants woman only wants woman to work, but seems to also want some ability to cry "I am a victim. She really is quite pathetic.

To the anonymous poster (why not sign your post?) who wrote: "And, wow, JJ, you stupidity stuns me. Seriously, who cares if your mom worked on the 4-H float or something like that?" -- you have no idea what my mother did or what her contributions were. Yes, she worked with Girl Scouts at one time, but she has also served on the boards of many local institutions, for just one example. Wow, I guess it didn't impact anyone that she got bad doctors out of the hospital or found good doctors to replace them.

I don't know how competitive is is out here? I need to be prepared to "play with the big boys"? Ugh. What kind of society are you creating with this type of attitude? You are the type of person that turned me off of the corporate world to begin with. "That's not bettering women or their place in this world. Women who worked their way up the corporate ladder and now mentor other women are the ones that make a difference." Well, it would be a wonderful world if every female CEO was so kindhearted as to want to help those below her on the ladder, but I saw in the corporate world that that is often not the case. What most seem to have learned from "playing with the big boys" is that they need to climb to the top and then kick the ladder away in order to keep their position in the pecking order. Guess what? It's not all about climbing the ladder and being "competitive". Some of us just have other goals in life.

"And in our capitalist society, not having a job that pays money is tantamount to not existing."

I want out of your society.

What really irks me about the "opt-out revolution?" The women we speak of are generally upper-class and extremely well-educated. When I think of all of the resources that went into my education at a prestigious college, I can't in good conscience make the argument that raising a good kid or two is my fair return to society. I owe the world a lot more than that, and I fully intend on paying up.

Is there really proof that a huge majority of "the best and the brightest" are dropping out of the workforce to raise their children and stay at home? I'm just asking. I'm not seeing that here in DC. The women I know who work and have kids only took a few months off with each child. I work for a nonprofit scientific organization. Most of my female co-workers (ages 22 to ~60) have Ph.D.s and don't have any plans to quit working.

"It is unreasonable to compare taking care of your children with getting out and going to a job every day."

You're right. I've done both, and going to work is infinitely better paying and at times, both more and less rewarding than staying home.

Staying home could break even the strongest working woman. It's harder than working, psychologically speaking. I've spent about equal time doing both.

Staying home is a "risky occupation."

It's interesting, there is usually little discussion of "unemployed mothers." I was laid off/fired specifically because I was a mother, and then became pregnant with my second child (when my first was 7). I would have preferred to work at the time, but it wasn't to be. (My father was also dying, too.)

I think Linda's Hirshman's view that working moms ought to have only one child is very wrongheaded, although I agree with some of her other points. Why should smart, successful women cede family life to less educated women? It doesn't make any sense.

As a mother, I want my daughter to be able to have a good life. It's my hope that she won't be vilified for her choices, or forced to make false choices -- between career and family.

The whole "Mommy Wars" topic is verging on the completely idiotic. And, it's doing nothing to make life better for the next generation.

That was me, JJ. I forgot to put in a name. As far as a response, read what Susan and Just a Thought have posted. They are saying what I'm saying -- only much more eloquent.

To all the working prof. moms out there who feel isolated and alone as you muddle thru -

There are a large percentage of younger professional guys out there who respect you very much. You guys fight the good fight at the office every day and you carry your weight. You're like the running back playing hard every week even though you don't have the benefit of the good offensive line. We're happy to work FOR you on your teams and would be happy to have you work for us on ours (and not just b/c you understand when we have to leave to go get the sick baby). We're rooting for you, and a good percentage of us hope our wives are doing as well at work as you guys are.

We can't actually say this stuff to your face though. HR would kill us. :-)

Linda Hirschman Quote from 'Everybody Hates...' link:
"But, I kept asking myself, were my only backers people related to me by blood or friendship? Why wasn't I getting bouquets from Morgan Stanley and chocolates from Arnold and Porter? Did every working mother in America wish only for a hedge-fund manager to come and rescue her?"

Mom stay home or Dad stay home - or both work? The toughest choice for husband and wife who both decide to continue careers after having kids, and decide to opt to have daycare/nannies/extended family bringing up their toddlers, will have a difficult experience when the reasonable hope to bring up their kids "their way" seems to be be slipping away. In-laws providing the day care is strewn with minefields.

Paid professionals isnt a panacea either: I had the pleasure of overhearing a supervisor level daycare provider describe her day while getting PT on an injury at the next table. Her operation supervises babies from 6-weeks to 5 years old filling the gap from the end of maternity leave up to kindergarten. Oh the sound of condescension and superiority of this high qualified and veteran SAHM substitute: "Sigh, well we give the kids all the love we can, but the sadness when their parents abandon them in the morning breaks my heart."

June 19: How great it is, to be wealthy and elite, and have a 'choice' as to whether or not to work.

My mom was an attorney in NYC and we had a live in, documented, FICA legal nanny from the age of 6-weeks until my mom left the firm and set up a local law practice when I was 13. The cost/benefit of Day Care vs the pay/benefit of the career (mom's or dad's) are clearly factors and there is no easy template to make the decision. Since my household has the means our analysis has led us to decide to have our kids taught, cared for by "blood and friendship" (to steal linda's term) instead of surrogates no matter how well-meaning or qualified.

Leslie's point has always been that working mothers/fathers should at least get some slack from the face time workaday pressure as their role as involved parents matters, and an individual's WOHM skills should not be discarded in the workplace. Linda saying that SAHM's and the desire to be a full time mom IS a prime driver of the discrimination in the workplace is a bit of a tough sell for me. My wife's college education and nurse training are invaluable on the home front. Teacher, doctor, leader, role model, publisher, designer manager etc. My degree doesn't apply directly to lawn pesticide application, basement insulation, distant hockey rink/soccer field navigation and transportation, plumbing, painting, coaching, civics instructor, comedian etc.

Being philosophically critical, and bitterly judgmental of already overworked/underpaid condition of entry level child supervision household management using purely economic analysis clearly strikes a raw nerve - and that the highly educated usually can write, have access to the internet are happy to throw flame right back at bitter, judgmental, know-it-alls from academia don't surprise me none.

Re: What I think of SAHDs - I would be inclined to feel more positively about the SAHM "choice" if equal numbers of men and women made that "choice." Yes, more men are making that choice nowadays (including one of my friends from law school - he's my age, 29), but it's still very, very few compared to women.

So it makes me suspicious that it's such a wonderful choice. (I think Hirshman points this out too.) If it were, why wouldn't men be lining up to do it? (Same with changing your last name after marriage, but that's another topic...)

It seems more like an acting-out of the presumption that women are just more suitably MEANT to stick to the realm of home/children, while men are just meant to work out in the world.

Sad. :( This is not the world view I grew up with. I'm not buying into it myself - I love my job (in fact, I have 2!) and what I do - but I feel like others' choices will make it that much harder for me b/c people will look at me and assume I'll eventually drop out to have children.

Which I won't. If there was any doubt. ;)

Feminism is about equality and equality means being able to have the same opportunities and choices that men have. It DOES NOT mean dictating to women what their choices must be, i.e. working outside the home... that is no better than forcing women to stay home. I am appalled that there are women out there who think that they know what is best for all women and can't understand that what is fulfilling and rewarding to each woman is different. Women should be allowed to pursue whatever path they want and expect SUPPORT from thier own gender, not judgement and ridicule.

I find myself in impossible position of being infuritated by Linda Hirshman's philosophy and at the same time agreeing with (some of) her views. I chose a career in international relations. Without any connections in this field, it took me a long time to reach a senior position and a dream job in which I wanted to retire. But I also wanted to have a family and not just one child. To make a long story short, I lost my dream job but I was lucky to be able to find a somewhat family neutral position that is still international and looks good at least on paper. I love working in international field but this is a very "hot" area and employers are not really sympathetic to families. I don't want to be on travel weeks at a time and miss my children but it's a kind of either or situation. Again, I repeat I was lucky. How many of those women who chose to be SAHMs, former fund managers and lawyers, who could not stay in those all-encompassing jobs? Does one really need to work 80 hours a week to be a valuable employee? Also, having a support network makes such a difference. A supportive husband, grandparents, good nannies and babysitters. But every morning when I leave in an ungodly hour so that I can be home early and spend some quality time with my kids, I feel awful and am envious of all my friends who are SAHM, though I am fairly happy with my life as a woman, a wife, and a mother.

"Like No Name said, woman need to be out there, everyday, making laws, making businesses, being in the face of the bigwigs to make our world the way we want it. SAH moms completely drop the feminist ball when they drop out of the rat-race."

How disappointing. The purpose of the feminist movement was to make the world better for women and men, not pit working mothers against SAHMs.

WashPost radio has too many commercials. :-(

To begin with: I think LH is off base in some ways and on in others, and I applaud her contributing to the discussion in a way that gets people thinking. I am not a blanket supporter of Camille Paglia, either, but I appreciate her style since it jumpstarts conversation.

That said, I'm surprised at a _philosopher_, for crying out loud, taking such a utilitarian view of education. Is the only purpose of education to get a job? What "worth" has her educational background? For my part, I graduated with a double major and use neither aspect of my degree in my directorship. Is my degree wasted? Half the people I know are in the same boat.

I read the link at "Everyone Hates Linda" and frankly I didn't interpret it as a screed against her, but a serious discussion of her points and some agreement. The title was simply inflammatory to get people reading. LH's citing it as evidence of how people hated her ideas made no sense at all.

It is hard to understand why there are ideological wars on the issues of whether or not mothers should work. Most mothers who work have to work for financial reasons and find it nearly impossible to do what they have to do at home and constantly feel overloaded and overwhelmed. I think that telecommuting for working mothers, if at all possible part or all of the time, is very helpful. The fact is that women are still paid less than men for the same work. Often in the workplace, there is no recognition that women have major responsibility for a child or children at home. Women in the workplace continue to get the short end of the stick on both counts. Business reaps the benefits: less pay for the same work, which also helps to keep down the wages of men.
For myself, I would be willing to take home less pay than a man if I had an option of also having more time off--especially in the summer months and in December. But of course that option has never been offered.
In short, I think that rather than issuing manifestos and counter-manifestos on whether women should or should not stay at home, energy would be better spent improving working conditions and pay for women who work and are also mothers, so that they fell that they can do both jobs well.
Lastly, if all women work and all women have only one child, we will have a perpetually shrinking population, so clearly Hirshman's recommendation cannot be extended to all.

If "Feminism is about equality and equality means being able to have the same opportunities and choices that men have," then I take that as an implicit "thank you" to all the women who continue to stay in the work force to allow your daughters the same opportunities and choices as men have when they grow up - and not have to battle the assumption they are just going to quit after they have kids.

I'm really quite befuddled as to the disgust and judgment being brought down on SAHMs. How long will you allow us to be away from work after a child is born before it's OK to go back? Is it OK to work part-time for a while? Is it OK to switch to a lower-paid but more family-friendly position in order to have more time with your kids?

From your comments I'm getting the feeling that the more hours you work, the more power you have, and the more money you earn, the better a feminist (and person) you are. Is this true or do you see any accomodations for your family? And if so, how do you reconcile it with your feminist principles?

Why aren't men having this heated a discussion about whether they should work?

"And, wow, JJ, you stupidity stuns me. Seriously, who cares if your mom worked on the 4-H float or something like that? That's not bettering women or their place in this world. Women who worked their way up the corporate ladder and now mentor other women are the ones that make a difference."

Actually, kids do care if their parents are involved in their activities. That's not to say you have to be involved in every single one, but the truth is, most of them would rather have "hands on" parents rather than "important" parents. The same is true with marriage. Isn't it more satisfying to have someone who cares about you on a personal level than someone who has an important title but is unavailable?

The two are not mutually exclusive, of course. There are many accomplished people who can handle it all, including intimate relationships with their families.

But the reality is, most people work to live as they say, not live to work. They are working for a paycheck in order to support their families, not to make a political statement or to better the world, although that can be nice.

Some people work at a job, and then spend their spare time in civic activities. I think outside of Washington, this is how most people live. Washington presents a distorted view of power and career (speaking as someone who was raised in the DC area, but has lived most of adult life outside of it).

The truth about the corporate ladder is that it often can really just suck. There is no moral obligation to climb it. That's ridiculous.

On a final note, when I was growing up (70s), women were returning to work in record numbers after staying home. And, believe it or not, they were able to perform their jobs and compete with men very well, despite having stayed home. So maybe there's a little bit of myth-making surrounding working outside the home. That it makes you better or smarter or superior. With the exception of brain surgery and rocket science, most of the work can be learned without too much trouble.

>>Women should be allowed to pursue whatever path they want and expect SUPPORT from thier own gender, not judgement and ridicule.>>

Except, not really. Only the ones with husbands who make enough money to support the family can "pursue whatever path they want." The rest of us are out here fighting to pursue the paths WE want, it's not like we get a ton of support from other women, either. Look at the previous threads on this blog...the SAHMs who resent being asked to watch working moms' kids on snow days, the PTA clique moms who don't want the help of working moms who can't give 110% to volunteering, the moms with the anecdotes about the daycare workers who know how sad the kids are when they get dropped off...

If all women in the U.S. worked and had only one child, would be become like China, with a surge in abortions to get rid of unwanted female children in preference of males? (What percentage of men would fully support their only child being a female?) How would this help the feminist cause?

Lilybeth, as has been discussed on this blog quite a bit, society has not given men the "choice" to not work -- whether to be SAHDs or to be a househusband. SAHDs are generally subjected to scorn. Househusbands are generally derided as lazy golddiggers...

"Only the ones with husbands who make enough money to support the family can "pursue whatever path they want."

Or the ones who've earned enough money to do so themselves. You're not being very supportive of women's achievements to say that the only way they can expect to afford to stay at home is by living off their husbands. I worked and built my finances so I could afford to stay at home even if I had a child on my own.

I am a man and I agree with Linda Hirshman's views.

In fact, I actually lose respect for women (or men if they chose to as well) who stay at home with the kids and dont't work at all.

I see it more and more and it boggles my mind.

People keep saying that kids turn out better when a parent stays at home, but I look at myself whose mother and father worked, and I am successful.

"And in our capitalist society, not having a job that pays money is tantamount to not existing."

"I want out of your society."

Well then, what's your plan? Are you lobbying your local congressman to give parents social security credit for years spent providing free childcare? Or to pay stay-at-home parents a monthly stipend? Or will you just live off the money someone else earns? That's not dropping out society. That's just being powerless within it. I never said I agreed with or endorsed our current economic arrangements. But to pretend that you can just ignore the system is silly. And that's Hirshman's point.

I work full time. In my department, I am one of two women with children. I would say that less than 10% of the men I work with have wives that work out of the home. When people find out I have a toddler at home, I get a mix of sympathy and outright pity from my co-workers.

Guilt? I know it well. Self-inflicted or not, its a fact of my life as a working parent.

For my female colleagues without children, business travel, happy hours after work, evening networking events and the like are no big deal. To me, its a matter of being able to spend quality time with my daughter. Is it preventing me from growing in my career? I don't know. It shouldn't, but I've also made it known that I won't work or travel any more than I already do.

Is my daughter healthy and happy? Yes, but there are definite drawbacks to not being her primary caregiver. Most of them are too lenghty to list.

So, all of this being said - why do I still work full time? Because I love it, it makes me a happier person. It makes me more focused on quality time with my daughter. It makes me feel like I'm making a financial contribution to my family. I feel like I'm giving back to the community.

But this is ME. It is not my neighbor, or my other neighbor or my co-worker or my cousin or my best friend. My situation isn't perfect, but I feel its the best I can do for myself and my daughter. There are times that I wish I was a SAHM, and other days when you couldn't pay me to do it. But again, this is ME. What I do for myself isn't for everyone. Whether or not there is a grain of truth in Linda Hirshman's manifesto or not, the real conversation is about choice and supporting everyone, regardless of their decision.

I'm saying we should not accept that premise.

We shouldn't say, "OK, it's just a given that men will work and be able to have 100000 children without a second thought or blink of an eye. Women, on the other hand, just HAVE to go through these intense struggles of the mind to figure out how they will deal with these thorny questions and decisions about 'juggling work and family,' 'guilt' over having their own interests and goals in life separate from their husband and children, etc. So where do we go from that premise?"

I reject it. If men aren't having this intense personal turmoil, let's "choose" not to have it either.

(Though as you can tell, I LOVE to get baited into the drama of these discussions! LOL ;))

Don't many of you realize you are playing into the game of "make them fight amongst each other so they won't see what is going on?"

While we are pointing fingers and making dire predictions about each other's choices, business -- private and public -- are MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE -- and they aren't favorable to families.

The minute a woman walks in for an interview -- there is a litany of questions that are illegal to ask, but are hinted at by many.

Age, wherever the woman is on the spectrum is suspect of something -- young enough to be engaged; young married without children YET; married with children - (that one breaks down into several categories - can the is there adequate back-up day care coverage; child stay home alone if mom has to work overtime; is the child having trouble in school; is the mom working so child can go to college; has the woman been out of the workplace too long to be of any real value; is her husband retired and therefore going to cause her to make choices (that's where I am.) Having faced every single one of these questions my entire work life -- Hirshman is right on. It has nothing to do with a value judgement on motherhood, stay at home or otherwise; but it has everything to do with businesses that do not support family choices.

What other country in the industrial world gives less than 10% time off? (10 days vacation, 11 holidays out of 260 possible workdays.) By the time vacation rolls around, people are burnt out and overtired to really rejuvinate themselves. They come back to work more tired than when they left. Men are just as suseptible to being overworked and overtired, but again the perception in the workplace is that since he is not primary (I said PERCEPTION) caretaker of family (whether children or aging parents) and therefore is not as stressed out.

So, by keeping all of us fighting among our selves and pointing fingers, no one is questioning that the workplace in today's society does NOT support family - whether family is a single person, single parent, two-parent, and/or taking care of aged parents.

Just wondering: if all women are supposed to work (and most men have/want/are supposed to work, who is "supposed" to take care of the children.

Oh wait, I know, underpaid, overworked, under-educated immigrant women with questionable documents.

This whole argument is lame. I should get back to work.

Susan, see Tanger's post. I've earned enough too, to be able to stay at home. I live in a small house, cook all our meals (no dining out), buy secondhand clothes-- and can afford to stay at home. Not with huge material consumption, but a comfortable existence.

I would have no worth if I chose not to work? Is a person's worth proportional to income?

Lilybeth - where have you been all my life?!

"Why are moms called upon to make such a huge sacrifice to accomodate the current work environment -- instead of asking the workplace and our government to make relatively minor changes to accomodate employees with children?"

-Because a one-size-fits-all gov't regulation would inevitably lead to complaints that it doesn't work for everyone;
-Because employers are running a business not a social services agency. They can and should be accommodating, but that's up to them. They shouldn't be forced;
-Because anyone who takes more than the usual amount of time off (male or female, parent or not, sick or well) puts burdens on both the employer and their co-workers. Even if it's just a couple of hours once or twice a week that can be made up, co-workers have to work around those couple of hours. Those people are less likely to be available to work overtime or weekends on emergency projects, putting a burden on those who might be. When I had to re-schedule meetings for the fourth time in two weeks because of sick kids and such this really sank in. Those folks are getting paid the same as me to do a similar job, but they're not doing the job as well because they're irregularly out of the office. Why can't employers take that into account?
-Because society should not be expected to take responsibility for the decisions of individuals. If you choose to have a kid and work, you know that there will be trade-offs and you accept that. Bravo. If you choose to have a kid and not work, or work and not have a kid, you know that there will be trade-offs and you accept that. Bravo. Take responsibility for your actions. Maybe society could be more helpful, maybe it will be in the future, but you're making decisions for the present. Deal with that.

It takes a genius to raise a successful kid. Any idiot can work at the office. People who think they are a member of the "best and the brightest" because they have a college degree are just flat out wrong, not to mention that their ignorance is appalling.

Leslie, I was hoping you'd redeem yourself on the radio with Linda Hirshman, but you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. I'm really offended by your assertion that I can't relate to someone unless they're "vulnerable," and have a nice "tone." How incredibly sexist and condescending -- shame on you!

You say she's too angry, but your response to her displays a lot more anger than she does. Besides, what's so wrong with being angry -- don't you think the persistent inequality between women and men at home and at work is worth getting angry about? Oops, I forgot, I'm not supposed to be angry, I'm supposed to be "vulnerable."

Kate, you said it much better than I did. It's not that I don't think working women are important -- of course they are! It's just that not every woman must devote herself to this one cause. Bright and successful women who climb the ladder should do their best to change the rules and the environment for women who come after them and for men who also work in the "rat race". But not everyone who works will rise up the ladder to positions of great influence. Many of us have worked hard but been affected by situations in the workplace that are beyond our control and not "worth" our time, money, and energy to fight against -- as many who have been laid off unfairly can attest. Certainly the perception of the upper ranks of management needs to be changed from one of a "rat race" mentality and "playing with the big boys". How does that help anyone -- male or female, with children or without? I thought the whole argument was that we need to make the working world more hospitable to parents who want to be somewhat involved in raising their children.

First, we're supposed to feel guilty about not staying home.

Now, we're supposed to feel guilty about not work.

And we all wonder why it's stressful just living with the choices we've made.

I've always agreed with Hirshman. One thing I was prepared to disagree with was any contention that conservative Christians were the primary source of complaint about her views. Clearly, plenty of otherwise liberal women get offended when someone observes that they apparently used their education for nothing more than hunting down a man willing to pay for them.

But in fact, Hirshman mentions both those women and other erstwhile "choice" feminists in her op-ed piece. She singles out three groups, not just Christian conservatives. Her essay would have been better if she'd downplayed that part.

BTW, if anyone is interested, The Perfect World has an ongoing discussion about this, with a better interface for give and take.

Business will resist any and all manner of regulation no matter how much it might benefit society. So far, with lots of support from the religious right and others, we have come to this pass: It is good for society as a whole if parents are available for young children; women should bear 100% of the cost of that social good. That's called free riding. Women got tired and said no and they're still being guilt tripped for it.

I'm not a woman, but if I were, I think that (especially after reading some of the thoughtful comments here) I would feel a sense of duty to remain in the workforce, for the benefit of my daughters. In a similar way I feel an obligation, as their father, to lead by example when it comes to doing housework, staying home from work when they are sick, etc. Generally, being an equal partner (and parent) in all respects with my wife.

That doesn't make me a hero, or make me better than anyone else here. We all have to live our own lives. But I am very conscious that, if I want them to grow up believing that they really can be anything they want to be, and do whatever they want to do, without any thought that they might be limited due to being women, then I have to show them, not tell them, that this is the case.

They ought to believe that they can balance a career and a family if they so choose, and when the time comes they should demand a partner who supports them in this.

It is a conundrum that women who work and raise daughters have daughters who are less prepared to go out in the world and get great jobs than those women who don't work. It may be great to be an example of being a working mom but those daughters are actually better off with mothers who supervise homework, take them to music, sports and scouts and who get them tutors when they need it.

In my family we are skipping generations. My mom had a graduate degree and a great job. She was very unavailable as a mother. I am one of those who quit working after the second child. I'll tell you something I believe, my daughter is going places. She has real talent and I make sure she has excellent training. If I was working, she wouldn't get half that training.

It'd be nice to be both the example and available but limitations of time and energy are real. I know lots of women who believe they have it all, but most are kidding themselves. The ones with the biggest careers have the highest number of failed marriages and unhappy and unfulfilled children. This is not my fault.

I want opportunity for my daughter and I also want her to have choices. What bothers me about Hirshman is that, if she could, she would deny my daugher those choices.

To the women who do not yet have children, it is a little premature to talk about how you will never give up your job to be a SAHM. You really cannot surmise what your preferences will be before children happen. That said, as this blog reflects, people react very differently to parenthood, some want to stay home, some want to keep working, some have no choice in the matter. I suspect very few had any idea prior to their birth how much they would love their children and what they would be willing to do for them.

The thing about LH's article (the original) that is troubling to me is that it concludes that life is more fulfilling for working women than SAHM moms. Who is she to make that judgment for all women. I work as a lawyer, I graduated from a top law school 13 years ago, yadda, yadda yadda. I left a top tier law firm because it was a MISERABLE place to work and I see no reason that anyone wanting to have a real life outside of work should stay in such a place. I know enough people in firms to know that where I worked was not an exception. I just do not need that big of a house (and I have a very successful legal carreer with the government, so I did not drop out of the workforce for a failure to be able to cut it).

I am a happy person not because I work, but because I have a wonderful husband and daughter and great family and friends. We work hard (at work and at home) to have a good life, to get out and appreciate all that life has to offer, and we keep a sense of humor. If I gave up my job tomorrow to be a SAHM I would be working harder at home than I am now and very fulfilled. That fulfillment is a function of who I am and what I have made of my life, not what my job is.

I get that women who want to work should have the same opporunities as men. That said, who is anyone to second guess our choices. The consequences of choices are complex, I prefer my free time with my family to a high paycheck, I prefer working to staying home so that my husband does not have to work 60+ hours a week to support us. I prefer a small house in the city to a large house in the burbs so that I do not spend half my life commuting. I prefer Thai over Chinese. My point is these are peoples lives, so who is this person to tell me what I "should" do.

Also, to the person insulting the value of community involvement. Get over your self-importance. You are kidding yourself that you somehow contribute more to society than people involved in the community.

It's unfortunate that there needs to be a zero-sum game here. Do the existence of SAHMs really take the air out of the argument that employers in our society need to be more family-freindly? My wife and I both work, and try to share equally in the raising of our only daughter. I think she feels that I'm helping out. It seems to work for us. We absolutely love maximizing our time with our daughter, but certainly see the important strides she has made at her pre-school daycare, which perhaps she wouldn't have had if one of us had stayed at home (that's just a comment on us, not SAHMs generally). I can understand, just from a daycare cost perspective alone, why having children (particularly multiples) would lead to staying at home. The cost, particularly in the DC area, for daycare is insane. However, I hope this doesn't detract from a recognition that our American society has been utterly ineffective in encouraging or yes, even compelling, employers to offer something like a family friendly environment for all of their employees. Certainly by European standards, the FMLA was utterly pathetic. Sure, perhaps we lead the world in productivity and GDP, but you'd don't think there's a downside to our working our tushes off? Think again.

Our lives don't come to a screaching halt when our children grow up. The argument that education is wasted on SAHM's assumes they shrivel up and die once their children are gone.

Add ageism to my complaints about her.

Hey, here's an idea: Why don't we just accept that each woman does what she truly believes to be best for her children and family and stop trying to tear each other down on the time. Jeepers, what a bunch of mindless jerks are on this board! Staying at home and working have value in different ways, you're not better than anyone else for making the choice you did.

Egads Fo4, maybe any idiot can work at YOUR office, but that's certainly not universal.

Just "accepting everyone's choices" is fine if those choices have no impact on others. But the choices we're talking about DO affect others, as discussed above.

(Checking out for a while now....I have some work to do ;) ...)

I hope that all of the SAHM know about their financial stituation and take care of themselves as well. I am a lawyer and a mother. I have a very satisfying legal career in the govt (very flexible environment), and 2 kids. My CFO husband decided to quit his job and move to the beach. We are obviously in the process of divorce. I do not have to worry about my financial situation, health insurance, etc. I can provide that for my kids. I can not tell you how many of my SAHM friends are also getting divorced and are getting screwed... must move, etc. because they had no money put away for themselves and didnt think thier lives would end up that way. PS: My kids are doing fine and I am an awesome role model for them.

I have been reading these comments with great interest, and one sentiment I'd like to agree with is the 'live and let live' one -- where women make their choice(s) and we support them.

I'd LIKE to do that. But here's my problem with it -- if a woman is a working mom, her actions don't impact the SAH mom. However, if a woman leaves her job to SAH, her action DOES (negatively) impact the working mom. Others have posted about this, but essentially, women leaving work to have kids puts a bad mark (if you will) on other women in the workforce. I have personally seen this where I work.

I feel that is where the debate lies -- yes, we're all free to make our own choices, but people don't have to like or support your choice if it negatively impacts them.

Gee Becky and Friends,

The board is all yours, but I don't see any of you on it. I hope you feel really good about your posts on Thursday.

I completed work on my MSA, while working full-time, and in my first trimester of my first pregnancy. I was awarded my degree in February, and left the workforce (for what turned out to be an 11-year hiatus) in June of that same year. I took a lot of flak for 'wasting' my degree, to which my response was that famous quote from Dr. Charles McIver: "When you educate a man, you educate an individual; when you educate a woman, you educate a family."

Not to mention that my advanced degree was an employment guarantee (of sorts) when I did return to the workforce.

>>It is a conundrum that women who work and raise daughters have daughters who are less prepared to go out in the world and get great jobs than those women who don't work. It may be great to be an example of being a working mom but those daughters are actually better off with mothers who supervise homework, take them to music, sports and scouts and who get them tutors when they need it.>>

Huh? Working moms don't supervise homework or take their kids to practice or, you know, mother them? News to me. And to my mother, who worked full time and rose high up the ladder, raised three succesful kids (including one with LD), served on the school board for several terms, sewed our Halloween costumes (even if we wanted store-bought), supported my dad when he started his own business...

I just don't buy that you have to stay home all day to be a "good mom." The moms at my office manage to leave during the day to see the school play, spend weekends at soccer games, go to CVS at 9 at night to get poster board and glitter (because that's when their kids tell them about the project due the next day), send cookies to the bake sale and bring in extras for their colleagues...

It's not easy. But it's not impossible, either. Having a dad who's equally involved makes a huge difference. Demonstrating that you work hard for your employer and developing your skills so that you can demand some flexibility at work helps a lot too. As a working mother, I am so tired of the implication that I'm short-changing my kid (or that I was short-changed myself). It's just not true, so it seems like a flimsy excuse to stay home to me.

All the sarcastic and cutting remarks about how staying home is a choice of the elite and pointing to all those that have to work in menial jobs makes a very black and white story of the haves and have-nots. What nobody seems to address in these "mommy wars" is the have-a-littles. I worked as a bartender until I had kids and now I stay home because I can't afford TO work - my paycheck would not cover child care for my three kids or if it would cover we would just break even which makes no sense. Not everyone is either a corporate lawyer or a drive-thru attendant.

"And no amount of bogus feelgood sloganing ("staying at home contributes to society") will change that."

When my mother stayed home, if she did nothing else, she raised five children who now pay social security for the people who collect it. So, I guess if you're measuring people only by their economic worth, she did something few other people have done. (And, oh by the way, those five people are also decent, hardworking, contributing members of society).

I personally have no problem with a woman being a WOHM or a SAHM. I do, however, heartily dislike the way in which women are villified either way. "Oh, why did you bother to have children if you weren't going to take care of them?" or "You're letting down women's rights if you quit to stay home with your children." Give me a break. We all make choices. Now, I can't imagine not working for an extended period of time (i.e. years) to stay home with the kids. I currently have the perfect job for me. I like it, not love it. If I were to suddenly be independently wealthy, maybe I'd leave but in the meantime, there is the reality that somebody has to earn a paycheck. And I can't see myself ever wanting to feel totally dependent on someone else. I don't feel that daycare is inherently evil like some seem to want to say. We're currently expecting our third child and in all likelihood my husband is going to make the switch to SAHD. He really wants there to be a SAH parent and he wants it enough that he's willing for it to be him. We have very similar (decent although not excessively high) salaries currently, with me having a slight edge so there isn't the automatic "oh, her salary wouldn't pay for daycare anyway."

As for furthering the rights of women, or I should say, better family/work balance, maybe if more fathers were SAHDs and more mothers stayed in the workplace (and get real, not everyone, male or female, is going to be or wants to be a CEO) the perception of who is more or less likely to leave a job due to the kids will be less cliché. And if the family caretaker/family breadwinner identity is more ambiguous, maybe employers will have to care more about having family friendly policies.

As for the poster who said they had less (or was it no?) respect for SAHMs or SAHDs, well, get over yourself. Work isn't everything. And even if you are CEO, or President, it doesn't mean you're going to rate someone else's respect.

You all still just don't get it. Yeah, women's choices affect others, their kids, their families, and their coworkers. Each woman will have to choose what her priorities are and there is no right and wrong. Tough noogies if a SAHM's choice makes you uncomfortable at work if it's what SHE thinks is best for HER kids, she should do it. Tough noogies too if some SAHM feels put out because the working moms don't pitch in enough or if they resent WOHM asking favors etc. - the working mom is doing what she needs to do to support her family. OUr choices have impacts but nobody really knows what they are, so we do the best we can. Deal.

"Dear Mass Prof.,
You're not alone. Most people like us are too busy working to blog. I happen to have the day off--I'm an academic like you. We are terrific examples to our children. My son had to write an essay in school one year about who was a "hero" in his life and he was the only kid in his class to write about his mother. He wrote "even though she is busy saving lives, she still has time to spend with me".

I'm not religious, nor am I part of the right. (I'm liberal to moderate). But in all seriousness, I can complete